MetroPCS piles on, sues FCC to stop net neutrality regulations

Even the wireless-only carriers, which were allowed to do just about anything …

Earlier this month, MetroPCS rolled out new 4G data plans for phones. The plans provided different Internet services—not just different amounts of data—to those who paid more money, and they promptly sent critics into a fury. Wasn't this a major net neutrality violation, in principle if not in law?

When we called MetroPCS to ask about this charge, a company rep told us merely, "I don't think that Metro is discussing this right now." Now we know why. Today, MetroPCS joined Verizon in challenging the FCC's limited open Internet rules, asking a court to throw them out and free companies like MetroPCS to innovate.

The plans as currently designed are only for the Samsung Craft phone, which runs the company's TouchWiz OS. This is a featurephone, and many of the "additional services" offered by the different tiers appear to rely on specific apps—a bit different than, say, just blocking a bunch of websites unless a user subscribes to a more expensive tier.

But Free Press' Chris Riley objected to the emphasis on higher fees for more data usage, noting that only the $50 and $60 plans get you "unlimited" e-mail and instant messaging. And he worries about a future in which the same approach is rolled out to more open platforms, telling Ars that "it seems pretty clear to us that these plans are not just for the one device but for a future which will include smartphones."

MetroPCS has promised to provide more details to the FCC in the coming weeks, but apparently decided to drop a lawsuit on the agency first. That suit, filed today in the DC Court of Appeals, seeks to overturn the FCC's net neutrality rules passed in late December.

The suit is odd for two reasons: first, Verizon has already filed a similar suit and has hired a lawyer who won a similar case for Comcast last year; why not let it pay the legal bills? Second, the net neutrality rules were so loose as to be nearly nonexistent for wireless, which was even allowed to impose unreasonable discrimination on customers. But the agency's order did say that the FCC would keep an unwavering eye on the wireless business for signs of abuse; MetroPCS may just be trying to head off any future regulatory action that could hamper its tiering plans.

35 Reader Comments

Well, if our politicians can't stop this thing, than all I can say for sure is that I certainly won't subscribe to this service. Of course I question whether every carrier will adopt such tactics, leaving me nowhere to turn, as is the Comcast/Qwest wireline problem I have at the moment.

Gotta side with the "free market" group on this one, because featurephones come with built-in amounts of teh suck, which naturally limits their appeal more so than any violations of "fairness" the carrier can impose.

You want a dumb phone and want to pay a reduced fee each month, go for it. You want a smartphone, with actual web access, they're all over the place. And with much better coverage than MetroPCS, too.

Not if ALL the carriers do similar plans. Than there is no alternative.

I just want someone to explain to me why each bill contains a fee for the carriers to upgrade their networks and yet they all say they don't have networks capable of handling smart phone traffic and why the data plans they do offer cost more than my home connection and are unofficially capped at 5 gb.

And even more, why I get charged for a "call plan" that I don't use all the minutes of yet they only get charged by the back bone for the actual minutes I use.

It's really time to go stop this shit. Vote with your dollars, or vote by walking into a Verizon or MetroPCS store and telling them they are assholes, but this has to stop. Since when do corporations get to decide what authority government agencies, mandated by the people of this country, have over them?

I'm just kind of awestruck that everybody seems to think the Federal Communications Commission can't regulate the companies that control the most important and widespread communication systems.

The initial impression I had of the FCC's ideas seemed impressive to me (back before the ideas even were considering teeth). To me it seemed to change drastically at the very end, right before they passed the laws.

I'm totally surprised we even have a part of the government that really does seem to want to help. I would also think that the President should be vocally backing the FCC decisions when in regards to net neutrality because if we are going to keep getting rid of paper systems and use electronic everyone needs to have access *utility*.

Most likely these suits are a consequence of their lawyers telling these companies that the FCC regulations are open to legal question. Particularly, in the case of wireless, bandwidth is a limited resource. Those who want to use it should expect to pay the cost. Its fairly obvious that the FCC bureaucrats and even less the wannabe ideologue comedian have no particular skill at designing effective wireless networks. The way to arrive at the best result is to encourage substantial business competition and let that competition find the offerings that attract users.

This is the future of the Internet. Tiered Service. Metro PCS just seems to be going for broke and wanting to test the legal grounds of the business model. Cellco's stand to profit big time by models like this. Its only a matter of time before it seeps out into wireline services.

Oh well, back to books, dial up and the old bbs.

Makes me wonder if there is a way to eek out more bandwidth of a dial up modem to at least give 728k service. Surely with the advancements in Cable and satelitte communications there is a way to use some of those advancements to squeeze more out.

Well, the FCC should fight right back by removing the net-neutrality exemptions from wireless. If the wireless carriers aren't going to accept the FCC's extremely generous compromise position, why should the FCC compromise at all- they got no thanks or cooperation for it. Screw the carriers, bring the full force of regulating them as telecommunications providers, as they obviously are to all except the brain-dead.

Not if ALL the carriers do similar plans. Than there is no alternative.

I just want someone to explain to me why each bill contains a fee for the carriers to upgrade their networks and yet they all say they don't have networks capable of handling smart phone traffic and why the data plans they do offer cost more than my home connection and are unofficially capped at 5 gb.

And even more, why I get charged for a "call plan" that I don't use all the minutes of yet they only get charged by the back bone for the actual minutes I use.

I agree.. im also sick of having to pay text messaging and data when its all the same. Unlimited Data should include unlimited texting. I shouldn't have to use Google Voice to avoid a text plan.

I could have this all wrong but my understanding is that the courts have said the FCC can't regulate the net because the FCC voluntarily reclassified the net as a non-telecommuncations service (or something similar). Therefore the FCC can't regulate the net under the telecommunications laws. However the courts have left open the option of the FCC changing its mind and putting the net back under the telecommunications rules.

It seems like these lawsuits should just leave the FCC going back to the old classification and imposing the rules they want.

What I find sad and short sighted is the simple fact that instead of working with the FCC, these companies are choosing to fight it. This will only end badly since if the FCC is cornered then either they will reclassify it again and then they are all screwed. OR Congress will get involved and it will turn into an even greater mess and they will be screwed. In this case, it is better to take your spanking then to have the gun aimed at your head.

There is absolutely no reason whatsoever that SMS needs to be handled any differently than any other data, except that it's extremely lucrative for the telcos. Especially since they all "independently" decided to raise their rates to the exact same price point at the exact same time.

I just recently went with a Prepaid Plan that offers unlimited text/data/web/calls for $50 month. I understand that not everyone can do this, I have limited calling needs at the moment, medium texting needs and zero data/web needs.

Funny thing is I was on Sprint using a Blackberry, went to Boost, got a keyboard phone and the plans do the same thing. Best I understand they are the same company, or at least Sprint owns Boost. My plan went from a $100 everything plan to a $50 plan that shrinks by $5 every month to $35. I guess time will tell.

I dunno, good enough for me at least. Not very many people need data on their phones, want is a different story though

I object to "asking a court to throw them out and free companies like MetroPCS to innovate." What, does the author work for a telcom? MectroPCS (or any other carrier) doesn't "innovate. They copy.

Also MetroPCS caters to the low end of the market. In other words, the poor. Translation: no one (except the poor) gives a fuck and they'll get away with anything they want.

It's not possible for these people to vote with their dollars. They are stuck with MetroPCS. No other carrier will sign them to a contact without a credit check. There's only like 5 carriers in the US. And they all want this. Our best hope is congress not caving.. and well - i'm not holding my breath.

sterlingdax: boost goes down 5 every 6 months unless they changed the terms of this fairly new plan already.

And yeah, back when my credit was bad verizon wanted full price for the featurephone and a 450 dollar non-refundable deposit (aka bribe) to activate the contract. With boost or Net10 the phones are dirt cheap and the monthly service is cheaper than a contract... and if I decide to switch companies I don't owe another 400. The only downside is I will have to wait a while longer to get the latest iCrap but I can live with that. Internet works fine on my dumbphone

I just canceled my cellphone service, If this is the way cellphone companies are going to go they just lost my business. I can use my home internet service and wifi networks to get the services I need without a cellphone data plan. I think we need to find ways to route around the problem. If enough people start dropping their service its going to be a wake up call. Cellphone Data plans are too expensive as it is and this bullshit is the last straw. Im using PhonePower.com IP phone service, and they have a device that you can hook up to your laptop to make calls from any wireless service. the service is 99$ a year with a 40$ activation and 20$ for the Travel Adapter.

I just canceled my cellphone service, If this is the way cellphone companies are going to go they just lost my business. I can use my home internet service and wifi networks to get the services I need without a cellphone data plan. I think we need to find ways to route around the problem. If enough people start dropping their service its going to be a wake up call. Cellphone Data plans are too expensive as it is and this bullshit is the last straw. Im using PhonePower.com IP phone service, and they have a device that you can hook up to your laptop to make calls from any wireless service. the service is 99$ a year with a 40$ activation and 20$ for the Travel Adapter.

The problem is that that the telecoms will likely used tiered wired internet services as well. Unfortunately, enough people won't stop and drop their service no matter what they telecoms do to mistreat them it would seem.

It's true, we pay way too much. The subsidy model should also be optional. Buying your own unlocked cell phone should be more widely accepted.

sterlingdax: boost goes down 5 every 6 months unless they changed the terms of this fairly new plan already.

And yeah, back when my credit was bad verizon wanted full price for the featurephone and a 450 dollar non-refundable deposit (aka bribe) to activate the contract. With boost or Net10 the phones are dirt cheap and the monthly service is cheaper than a contract... and if I decide to switch companies I don't owe another 400. The only downside is I will have to wait a while longer to get the latest iCrap but I can live with that. Internet works fine on my dumbphone

You are correct, it is every 6 months, I was on the way out the door to get my kids laptop fixed when I wrote that Like I said, my needs are minimal, but it's not been any different with coverage/quality/etc so far. I might sing a different tune later, who knows.

I really don't understand what the problem is here. It doesn't say they're blocking anything, in fact the cheap option gives you unlimited web. If there's nothing wrong with being able to pay for web content, what exactly is wrong in offering it? If the FCC did as you want and blocked these options, those services just wouldn't be available, at least not through Metro PCS. How would that help consumers? Who is being hurt here? Some of you sound like you're complaining just because a corporation is doing something to make money.

I really don't understand what the problem is here. It doesn't say they're blocking anything, in fact the cheap option gives you unlimited web. If there's nothing wrong with being able to pay for web content, what exactly is wrong in offering it? If the FCC did as you want and blocked these options, those services just wouldn't be available, at least not through Metro PCS. How would that help consumers? Who is being hurt here? Some of you sound like you're complaining just because a corporation is doing something to make money.

The internet needs to be treated as dumb pipe, once you start analysising it for revenew there is too much incentive to slow down certain services to get more money by speeding up other services. It just puts them in to powerful of a position to control the flow of information. They should be regulated just like a common carrier. But this country has its priorities so screwed up the will of the people is lost. People are going to let it get so bad that a revolution is going to be need to stop the train wreck.

The new MetroPCS data pricing plan does not in any way violate Net Neutrality rules. There's no difference in MetroPCS' plan than those offered to wireline consumers for Verizon, Comcast, AT&T, etc. All carriers offer businesses and consumers different pricing plans for different levels of service and bandwidth. This has always been the case and will continue. This is no difference with any consumer product - we pay more for larger cars, we pay more for larger soft drinks, beers, etc.

Net Neutrality is intended to prevent carriers from arbitrarily restricting bandwidth for certain content providers (Facebook as an example) in favor of their own (carrier) content. Hence, they can't play favoritism by restricting bandwidth.

All this being said, the posts about allowing the Free Markets to prevail are spot on. The FCC doesn't have the resources to enforce Net Neutrality - even if implemented, and history has shown this broad regulatory changes result in a plethora of lawsuits, varying interpretations and unintended consequences -- all of which do nothing except create greater confusion, less investment and innovation and do nothing to benefit consumers (which is the FCC's ultimate objective).

So let the Free Markets decide and innovation will result. One only has to look at the extraordinary innovation in telecom over the last decade (without regulatory influence). And as consumers we shouldn't complain too much. We now have access to far more applications, technology, competition and mobility - all at increasingly lower prices!! We should be thankful for that.

The new MetroPCS data pricing plan does not in any way violate Net Neutrality rules. There's no difference in MetroPCS' plan than those offered to wireline consumers for Verizon, Comcast, AT&T, etc. All carriers offer businesses and consumers different pricing plans for different levels of service and bandwidth. This has always been the case and will continue. This is no difference with any consumer product - we pay more for larger cars, we pay more for larger soft drinks, beers, etc.

Net Neutrality is intended to prevent carriers from arbitrarily restricting bandwidth for certain content providers (Facebook as an example) in favor of their own (carrier) content. Hence, they can't play favoritism by restricting bandwidth.

All this being said, the posts about allowing the Free Markets to prevail are spot on. The FCC doesn't have the resources to enforce Net Neutrality - even if implemented, and history has shown this broad regulatory changes result in a plethora of lawsuits, varying interpretations and unintended consequences -- all of which do nothing except create greater confusion, less investment and innovation and do nothing to benefit consumers (which is the FCC's ultimate objective).

So let the Free Markets decide and innovation will result. One only has to look at the extraordinary innovation in telecom over the last decade (without regulatory influence). And as consumers we shouldn't complain too much. We now have access to far more applications, technology, competition and mobility - all at increasingly lower prices!! We should be thankful for that.

There is no such thing as a free market when its controlled by a few companies all bent on minimizing choice at the expense of the people. Quit drinking the coolaid. Its more important that companies be thankful that they have our business and we are allowing them to operate in the first place, its not much to ask to keep the pipes dumb so that it is not hampered by distorted individuals more concerned about profit, then free from restrictions access to information. Which is where all this is going mind you, this is just the first step in that direction. If you dont see then you are either mis-informed or blind to history.

This really isnt all that bad. $60 unlimited plan is as cheap as any other unlimited data plan. It would not be right for the government to say that Metro PCS couldnt offer lower priced limited access plans for people who dont want access to the internet in a traditional way. If someone wants to have a cheap internet plan just to watch youtube then go for it. If an ISP wasnt offering any affordable plan to give you unlimited access to the web then another ISP would take jump into that market because people like me and everyone else on this forum will pick up the service immediately. This doesnt make the price go up necessarily but leaves cheaper more limited options available to stupid mindless fools who only care about facebook and youtube.